1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs

Assaulting a fascist is self defense

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by cynthetiq, Aug 16, 2017.

  1. cynthetiq

    cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    New York City
    Teacher Accused Of Punching Neo-Nazi Says Standing Up To Fascism Isn't A Crime | HuffPost

    “We have the right to defend ourselves,” Yvette Felarca told the court.

    Please help me understand. I have been a stalwart conservative for the Bill of Rights and do not see how I can condone someone assaulting someone for hateful language no matter how vitriol or disgusting that language is.

    The Charlotteville protests and counter protests are something I've been processing for a few days now to try to understand how I feel about it. Nazis are abhorrent. Racist people are abhorrent. But I cannot control them and ask them to be censored from their right to free speech or their right to bear arms. Until they cross the line and actually assault someone I don't think I can condone a pre-emptive strike as "self defense." I don't think that doxxing them and making them lose their jobs really is to anyone's benefit because if this can happen to them it can happen to any other disagreed upon ideology, belief, or lifestyle.

    Facebook is a total meltdown at the moment and not helpful because SJWs or their equivalent aren't discussing it but saying simply, unfollow me if you aren't

    Can anyone try to explain this better to me?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Focusing on Charlottesville, lets start by dispelling Trump's lie that the counter-protesters had no permit.

    Trump is Totally Wrong, Anti-Racist Protesters Actually Did Have Permits

    Both sides were exercising their right of free speech and assembly.

    The primary protest that started on Friday night was not about a statue, but about this:

    "You will not replace us!"

    "Jews will not replace us!"

    "Blood and soil" ( Blood and Soil - Wikipedia )

    "Whose Streets? Our Streets!"

    The first minutes of this video are chilling:



    There is no moral equivalency between the hate speech of those protesters and the verbal response of the counter-protesters.

    We dont know how the violence started but certainly a case can be made that one side incited violence by their torch-bearing words and actions.

    I dont know the point at what point free speech turns into inciteful speech but it needs to be addressed as does the lack of moral equivalence between the competing voices.

    In the larger context, Trump's FBI and DHS had been aware of a "persistent threat of lethal violence" by white supremacists and apparently buried the report.

    FBI and DHS Warned of Growing Threat From White Supremacists Months Ago.

    Joint Intelligence Bulletin.

    I dont know how we do a better job of addressing the threats of violence vs rights of speech but first we need to have a better understanding of those threats and a greater acceptance by those on the right in denial of those threats.

    We have no problem restricting rights when it comes to potential Muslim terrorism but many will never suggest the same standard for home grown far right white supremcists, neo-nazis and anti-government groups that certainly push the envelope in promoting violence.

    That's my bias, for what its worth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus Donor

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    I don't really understand what's going in the US, and am not interested enough in their domestic politics to read up on it properly. Wasn't it just 1 or 2 protests where people clashed, with one neo-Nazi driving over some anti-Nazi protesters in his car?

    Why are these, not-minor-but-also-not-major events becoming such a huge hot button topic? Legislation being passed, large corporates actively refusing service to any Nazi groups, constant media coverage and discussion, political furore everywhere, etc.

    When are SJWs ever useful? I see their movement as entitled, spoiled, attention-whoring 1st world citizens to whom a small grievance is a major issue that needs immediate prioritization from everyone... and if they don't receive the response they seek, they throw a massive tantrum.

    No point engaging them, as they are rarely there to listen or even remotely discuss a topic outside of their value system-based framing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. genuinemommy

    genuinemommy Moderator Staff Member

    I thoroughly appreciate this thread.

    If you haven't personally been present within the same space with a group of neonazis, I recommend attempting it sometime.

    The tension-filled hatred that they bring along with their convoluted outrage is overwhelming. It consumes a room and sucks all joy from the being. It is a nightmare.

    Verbal abuse is still abuse.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Katia

    Katia Very Tilted

    Location:
    Earth
    As an outsider looking in, pretty sure this has to do with Trumps response (influenced by Bannon, i suspect) to Charlottsville. Normally, a country looks to their leader for guidance when an event such as this happens and when they looked at Trump, he blamed both sides when it was very apparent which side was responsible.

    You're gonna see even more fallout from this in the weeks to come.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Sorry, verbal abuse is abuse...as is psychological.
    But physical assault is another level.

    There is a law in Virginia that says if someone attacks you, once they've broken off or are prone...you have to break off or stop...or you are declared an assaulter too. (or if they are assaulting another, which then it's still acceptable.)

    You should not be able to assault another, unless they are assaulting.
    Period.

    If they're shouting scum stuff, walk away. (and I hate Nazis, Satanist, Mafia, etc...and I've met many of them)

    Unfortunately, the judge had to allow them their protest...UNLESS they showed a trend to violence. (which they didn't before...now they have)

    You can't do eye for an eye.
    You can't do preemptive strikes
    Sorry...rule of law.

    Now, I don't mind tattling on them. In public, that is. (you cannot directly tell a company, that's invasion of privacy)
    I don't mind they lose their job. (hey,if you're stupid enough to get noticed) It happens to people who get overly drunk or high or bar fight, etc...so why not hatred speech?? (your company has rights too)

    Keep your hands off people unless they consent. Period.

    (war and police actions are a different matter and debate)
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  7. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus Donor

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    I haven't read Trump's response, but from the timeline I remember the slew of corporate and legislative action started up before Trump's statement. I might be wrong, though.

    And as with anything Trump, weeks-long fallout is par for the course.
     
  8. SirLance

    SirLance Death Therapist

    Opinions, no matter how reprehensible, are equally protected under the first amendment, and all groups have the right, equally, to peaceful assembly.

    Using violence to quell speech is wrong, and in fact criminal. It is not "self-defense." Self-defense is something you do when you perceive a reasonable threat of bodily harm.

    That said, racism, bigotry, and hate speech are morally repugnant, abhorrent, and reprehensible, regardless of the source or target. We do not have any obligation to provide a forum for any speech, however if we do provide a forum as a public service (i.e. a permit to assemble and march) we cannot deny said forum because we do not like the message.

    What happened in Charlottesville is a symptom of our times. We are too engaged in identity politics. We have taught ourselves that if you don't like the message you attack the messenger. We don't have dialog any more, we scream at each other from the opposite side of picket lines, and we throw nasty memes at each other via facebook and instagram, and we throw punches at each other at protests marches. We need real leadership to guide us back to our senses. Unfortunately, those we elect to lead are more concerned with reelection than anything else.

    Where's JFK when you need him?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. soreNutSac

    soreNutSac Vertical

    Location:
    Canada, Ottawa
    It's a total waist of time talking to a Nazi. The only time Nazis are somewhat happy is when they are with other Nazis.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. martian

    martian Server Monkey Staff Member

    Location:
    Mars
    I've never been clear on what an SJW is. Like, I believe in trans rights, gay rights and feminism. Does that make me an SJW? But I also think that you shouldn't punch Nazis, and that a lot of the tonality in the rights movement is too extreme and combative, and that it's hard to win over people with that kind of rhetoric. So, maybe not? It's so confusing.

    Regarding the punch a Nazi thing, I mean, the woman who did it is facing assault charges because, as it turns out, it's not okay to punch someone just because you disagree with them. And she's justifying it because she did it, so I guess that probably means she's okay with it? As far as I know she has not been declared any kind of spokesperson for anyone so I would be a bit hesitant to interpret her views as being representative of any particular group. The group that thinks it's okay to punch Nazis maybe, I guess. Do they have a Facebook page?

    I remember when Richard Spencer got punched during an interview, and I do recall a fair bit of controversy surrounding it. I will admit that, watching the footage, I did feel a very visceral sense of satisfaction because, honestly, out of all the people who could be punched in the face Richard Spencer falls pretty far onto the side of "eh, he probably deserved that." But on the other hand it's a bit of moral relativism and justifying violence against people whose views you don't agree with is a very dark road to go down. It leads to things like people driving cars into crowds of protesters. So hopefully most people will understand that no, it's not okay to punch a Nazi, even if the woman on trial for punching a Nazi says it is.

    So long story short, I guess what I'm saying is that punching a Nazi is bad and you shouldn't do that, but also I'm not really going to shed any tears for Nazis who get punched for being Nazis. Because they're Nazis.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist

    Location:
    North
    I consider myself to be a Social Justice Dire-Polar Bear Paladin.

    Sorry, but setting some trashcans and breaking windows is not the same as a Nazi waste of human skin driving into a crowd, killing an innocent young woman, who cared deeply about people she didn't have to, and putting 17 people in the hospital.
    The people who think I am less than human because I am a Jew are in no way on the same footing as the people who stand up to them.
    If you march with your arm in the air and shout, " Heil Trump.." and "Jews won't replace us." that deserves a strong response.
    My grandfather the labor organizer would have beat the crap out of them. My other grandfather fought them in WW II.
    Me, I'd just shout a lot unless they decided to to take offense, then all bets are off. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus Donor

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    No, it's not really the actual values that make SJWs what they are, they just happen to be on the very left. It's their approach to activism (or rather internet activism) combined with their belligerent self-righteous attitudes which make any semblance of a balanced discussion impossible. Issues can rarely be discussed rationally, as emotions and sense of entitlement quickly override everything - with a good helping of "if you're not with me, you must be the enemy" thrown in there. Immaturity is rife throughout the entire movement.

    That's what makes them entirely useless other than as a tool to manufacture outrage. I don't know how you behave outside of TFP, though you certainly don't strike me as one of them.

    And yeah, the overarching tonality when discussing rights is extremely toxic and the main reason why I've completely abandoned debating gender rights with anyone. Everybody shouts, nobody listens.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. martian

    martian Server Monkey Staff Member

    Location:
    Mars
    I don't think anyone here suggested those actions are equivalent. I probably came closest and my point was more that when you start justifying violence things can get bad. Violence begets violence. It's a bad place to be.

    That's the thing about rights, really, is that when you start talking about defending rights what it really means is that you have to defend rights for everyone, even the people you find reprehensible. Nazis are disgusting, but as long as they don't break laws they have every right to hold rallies and espouse their disgusting views. The real test for whether you consider a right to be universal is whether you would extend that right to everyone, regardless of who they are or how much you disagree with them or even whether they'd offer you the same. Everyone has the right to a life free from unprovoked violence. Even Nazis. And when you start denying that right society as a whole suffers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I agree. But at the same time, the other "real test" is the legal test of what constitutes protected speech, even hate speech, versus speech that may be determined to present a "clear and present danger" to the public.

    There is a fine line between the two and the law should be applied carefully but should not be ignored when that "clear and present danger" exists. It is a test that will likely be applied more frequently and challenged more frequently, as the alt-right in the US up their game and push the envelope as far as they can, as often as they can, and in as many locations as they can.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Katia

    Katia Very Tilted

    Location:
    Earth
    I'm not so sure if society as a whole suffers. In Canada we have hate speech laws that prevent these kinds of rallies from taking place in public. Not on the same level as the U.S. anyway. I dont think many people will miss hearing about their cesspool ideologies. The laws are relatively new, so its hard to say what might happen. Time will tell.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  16. martian

    martian Server Monkey Staff Member

    Location:
    Mars
    In Canada we do have hate speech laws, that's true. In the US they say that Nazis can be Nazis and say Nazi-like things. And there's probably room for debate on which approach is better or more moral or right or just. But that's not really the point I'm making here. In my previous post "when you start denying that right society as a whole suffers" is immediately preceded by "Everyone has the right to a life free from unprovoked violence." That's the subject of this thread, and quite frankly a subject my feelings are quite firm on. No, it is not okay to punch a Nazi just for being a Nazi. A Nazi can and should be made to face the consequences that their worldview and actions bring upon them, but those consequences should not include threats to their physical safety or well-being. We cannot start condoning violence against people just because we find them morally repugnant, lest the day come when someone finds us morally repugnant. We defend universal rights for even the least deserving, because it's only when those rights are extended to even the least deserving that they can be said to be universal.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Katia

    Katia Very Tilted

    Location:
    Earth
    I absoluley agree with you, everyone has the right to a life free from unprovoked violence.

    I wasnt there of course, but I dont see what she did was unprovoked. Why is intimidation and terrorizing people by these neo-nazis acceptable? Why is that considered "unprovoked"?
    Please dont get me wrong, Im personaly not going to go around punching nazis and I dont agree its the best choice of actions to use to oppose them, but I'd be a liar if I said I felt she was completly in the wrong. Legally though, yep.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. arkana

    arkana Very Tilted

    Location:
    canada
    But this "rights that extend to everyone" thing presumes some utopian vacuum where that is actually possible. Plenty of marginalized groups are protected by the letter of the law but how do you think that works out for them in practice? So the "slippery slope" and "rights for those we find reprehensible" suggests some intact fabric of the law that, by extending rights to Nazis, we are preserving when in fact, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. Dunno if that point is clear...it's late.

    Let me try a different one: what if violence on Nazis can never be unprovoked since clearly identifying yourself as a Nazi - whose values have been (can't even believe I have to use this word) *demonstrated* to centre upon the extermination of other races - is a signal that you are coming to the party to do business?Product: death.

    Also, what do you do as a citizen when your government - the lawmakers - are to some extent complicit in Naziism? How can you trust the law then? Or have I wrongly lumped in your ethics discussion with the law?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus Donor

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    In the case of the teacher mentioned in the article, the neo-Nazi was attacked repeatedly by the teacher while he stood with his hands up and was looking for help from police. There is quite little about this scenario that can be justified, even if you agree with her ideologically.

    The problem with these positions is the fact that the logic employed can easily be turned around towards other groups and schools of thought. If you argue "by openly subscribing and/or associating with these groups/beliefs, they are a threat to wider society and thus physical action taken against them is never unprovoked", you are descending towards a collapse of civilized society as the opponents can employ a similar line of thought to justify violent acts, and instigate like-minded people to follow their way of thinking.

    For example, many of the people who disagree with legalized abortions see the act of an abortion as the literal murder of an unborn life. To them, anyone involved in the practice is a conspirator in the murder of hundreds (if not thousands) of babies. Using your logic, they could very easily argue that anyone who is a public proponent of legal abortions - judged merely by their value system - is deserving of physical attacks, or to even be murdered in order to preempt future child murders.

    It'll set a dangerous precedent if wanton violence towards niche groups such as neo-Nazis is condoned by wider society. The only case where violence is justified is in self-defense or in the defense of others facing an immediate threat.

    You act in line with the civic duty of a citizen in a democratic society: Get involved in politics, campaign against those you perceive doing wrong, create/join a corresponding movement, and hope to achieve enough momentum and popularity to effect a change on the political and legal systems. Violent action outside of that is nothing more than mob mentality and vigilantism.

    I have worked with civic societies in Afghanistan fighting against endemic corruption in the system, and even in a war-torn country it was rare to find someone who proposed violence as an acceptable means - despite corruption having a considerable and highly detrimental effect on their lives and those of their families.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  20. martian

    martian Server Monkey Staff Member

    Location:
    Mars
    There probably aren't a lot of cases where I will find myself in a position to say this, but I agree wholeheartedly with everything @Remixer wrote.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1